PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Robert_S]

Seriously? He kept refilling her wine glass (which she kept emptying) and flirted with her (while she laughed, which would seem like encouragement to most people). I am completely confused about what he was supposed to have done wrong. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions

This.

I'll remember it if we meet

and I'll remember it if we meet!

[lordpasternack]

Anyway, I have trouble with the word "Coerced" if the woman accusing Shermer of rape was subject to the same MO as the third woman, who got drunker than intended.

I think "manipulated" seems a more accurate description. Maybe there's a better way to put it though?

Exactly.

There's obviously the implication in Myers' anonymous (and unverifiable) anecdotes, that Shermer purposefully tries to coax women into getting very drunk, before taking some sort of advantage of them once drunkenness is achieved.

If this is the case, then the current allegations against him - the incidents of disputed consent - should hopefully be enough to inform him that it is not wise to have sex with women who are too drunk to give meaningful consent to sex, and not wise to use too much alcohol as a means of "scoring" women.

On the other hand - people need to be responsible adults about their drinking habits. Unless there genuinely were some kind of duress present - you were not being "coerced" into drinking. You were making a relatively free decision of your own volition to lift the glass to your mouth and drink. This doesn't excuse any subsequent predatory behaviour on the part of the person assisting your drunkenness - but let's at least nail down the point that you probably weren't "coerced" into getting drunk.

And now that we've got that out of the way - just what exactly does: "coerced me into a position where I couldn't consent and then had sex with me", mean?

Could we possibly rephrase the allegation more clearly, just to: "Shermer (encouraged me to get drunk and then) had sex with me when (by my reckoning) I was incapable of consenting". That still leaves a lot open to interpretation, but at least it's a clearer allegation.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, the statement doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense to me is if he physically restrained her and had sex with her. So it's either that, or he "coerced" her into drinking and then had sex with her when she was too paralytic to consent. But I read on one of the blogs or the lawyer letter, that she commented about it straight(?) after to her friend. That would seem to negate the idea that she was too paralytic to consent.

[Robert_S]

Anyway, I have trouble with the word "Coerced" if the woman accusing Shermer of rape was subject to the same MO as the third woman, who got drunker than intended.

I think "manipulated" seems a more accurate description. Maybe there's a better way to put it though?

Exactly.

There's obviously the implication in Myers' anonymous (and unverifiable) anecdotes, that Shermer purposefully tries to coax women into getting very drunk, before taking some sort of advantage of them once drunkenness is achieved.

If this is the case, then the current allegations against him - the incidents of disputed consent - should hopefully be enough to inform him that it is not wise to have sex with women who are too drunk to give meaningful consent to sex, and not wise to use too much alcohol as a means of "scoring" women.

On the other hand - people need to be responsible adults about their drinking habits. Unless there genuinely were some kind of duress present - you were not being "coerced" into drinking. You were making a relatively free decision of your own volition to lift the glass to your mouth and drink. This doesn't excuse any subsequent predatory behaviour on the part of the person assisting your drunkenness - but let's at least nail down the point that you probably weren't "coerced" into getting drunk.

And now that we've got that out of the way - just what exactly does: "coerced me into a position where I couldn't consent and then had sex with me", mean?

Could we possibly rephrase the allegation more clearly, just to: "Shermer (encouraged me to get drunk and then) had sex with me when (by my reckoning) I was incapable of consenting". That still leaves a lot open to interpretation, but at least it's a clearer allegation.

Thanks. That's what I was trying to get at.

Thinking about it though, not letting someone empty their glass could be a method of shortcutting around someone's usual way of keeping track of their drinking.

[lordpasternack]

And for the record, I've also been in the position of being courted by a man whose main flirting technique is C2H5OH. He truly was a slimy bastard. I had sex with him once while somewhat drunk, and can say with hindsight that my consent, though granted, obviously wasn't high priority for him.

On the second occasion, I was sober enough to notice how obnoxious he was, and told him very quickly that I was leaving. The only two responses he was capable of articulating, repeatedly, in response to my rising indignation, were: "What's wrong with you?!" and, "Finish your drink first."

I had never before felt such real temptation to smash a glass in someone's face.

[charlou]

I think some women lack self-assurance and become victims of their own inability to take responsibility for their part in social interactions with men. And sometimes, later, the woman feels regret/feels guilty/feels icky/feels manipulated and accuses the man of inappropriate behaviour, blaming the man for putting her in a vulnerable position, of taking advantage of her because she's a woman.


Not saying some men don't exploit such women .. just saying that it's one dynamic .. that female victimhood can be self-incurred while being socially perpetuated.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah, the statement doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense to me is if he physically restrained her and had sex with her. So it's either that, or he "coerced" her into drinking and then had sex with her when she was too paralytic to consent. But I read on one of the blogs or the lawyer letter, that she commented about it straight(?) after to her friend. That would seem to negate the idea that she was too paralytic to consent.

I don't recall any timeframe mentioned between the alleged incident, and the alleged victim reaching the conclusion that she had been "coerced" and sexually exploited.

[pErvinalia]

I read it on either the blog or in the lawyer letter. The only uncertainty I have is whether it was straight after or whether it was the next day. I have the impression that it was straight after, but I can't be certain of that.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, I just checked, it's from both (i.e. the lawyer letter quoting the blog). FTB was down earlier, so I don't know if you will be able to view it at the moment. I've got it cached in pdf, so I've attached a screenshot of the relevant bit.

[Robert_S]

oops.

[Ayaan]

Seriously? He kept refilling her wine glass (which she kept emptying) and flirted with her (while she laughed, which would seem like encouragement to most people). I am completely confused about what he was supposed to have done wrong. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions

This.

Exactly. I'm not a very assertive person myself and have been known to be a bit overwhelmed in social situations, but even I can manage a "No, thank you." Of course, there is always the option of just leaving the glass untouched.

[Ayaan]

I think some women lack self-assurance and become victims of their own inability to take responsibility for their part in social interactions with men. And sometimes, later, the woman feels regret/feels guilty/feels icky/feels manipulated and accuses the man of inappropriate behaviour, blaming the man for putting her in a vulnerable position, of taking advantage of her because she's a woman.


Not saying some men don't exploit such women .. just saying that it's one dynamic .. that female victimhood can be self-incurred while being socially perpetuated.

Which does nothing to dispel the notion (held by some) that women are weak and unable to take care of themselves.

[Robert_S]

Yeah, the statement doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense to me is if he physically restrained her and had sex with her. So it's either that, or he "coerced" her into drinking and then had sex with her when she was too paralytic to consent. But I read on one of the blogs or the lawyer letter, that she commented about it straight(?) after to her friend. That would seem to negate the idea that she was too paralytic to consent.

I don't recall any timeframe mentioned between the alleged incident, and the alleged victim reaching the conclusion that she had been "coerced" and sexually exploited.

I've gone from falling down mumbling drunk to sober enough to hold a conversation with morning people in about three hours.

[lordpasternack]

Ok, I just checked, it's from both (i.e. the lawyer letter quoting the blog). FTB was down earlier, so I don't know if you will be able to view it at the moment. I've got it cached in pdf, so I've attached a screenshot of the relevant bit.

That isn't the alleged victim's own testimony - and the other person could be implying "immediately after she'd emerged from Shermer's room".

All of these statements will be lawyered to hell, though, of course… And ultimately, Myers was pretty fucking stupid to post an unsubstantiable (and vague) account of alleged sexual assault, allegedly from a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, doesn't want to be involved, and fears retaliation from Shermer. Now this alleged woman will either have to testify and provide evidence, likely revealing her identity - or Myers will just have to suck up all accusations that she is fictional.

Great success.

[Robert_S]

Ok, I just checked, it's from both (i.e. the lawyer letter quoting the blog). FTB was down earlier, so I don't know if you will be able to view it at the moment. I've got it cached in pdf, so I've attached a screenshot of the relevant bit.

That isn't the alleged victim's own testimony - and the other person could be implying "immediately after she'd emerged from Shermer's room".

All of these statements will be lawyered to hell, though, of course… And ultimately, Myers was pretty fucking stupid to post an unsubstantiable (and vague) account of alleged sexual assault, allegedly from a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, doesn't want to be involved, and fears retaliation from Shermer. Now this alleged woman will either have to testify and provide evidence, likely revealing her identity - or Myers will just have to suck up all accusations that she is fictional.

Great success.

Sad. Especially if she's telling the truth.